USPTO Patents Application 10016256

EQQ42418141

Remarks

This communication is considered fully responsive to the first Office
Action mailed October 5, 2005. Claims 1-20 were examined. Claims 1-16 and 20
stand rejected. Claims 17-19 are objected to. Claims 10 and 15 are amended to
correct minor typographical errors and not for reasons of patentability. No claims
are canceled. No new claims have been added. Reexamination and reconsideration
of claims 1-20 are respectfully requested.

Drawing Objections

The Office Action objected to the drawings because in Figure 6 the
"reference character c 50 5 has been used to designate both laptop computer 52 and
telematics system 24." Applicant respectfully traverses this objection. In the
specification, Applicant uses the reference character 50 to designate host devices
generally, such as, e.g., the laptop computer 52 and telematics system 24. See page
6, lines 28-30 of the specification. No correction to the drawings is believed to be
necessary.

The Office Action also objected to the drawings because "the top 78 should
be 68 for the back of the seat." Applicant appreciates the Examiner noting this
typographical error in Figures 4 and 5, and submits new formal drawings to
address the drawing objections. No new matter is introduced by this correction,
and Applicant respectfully requests that the new Figures 4 and 5 be entered.

8

10013703-1

£00*241814 1

Claim Objections

The Office Action objected to claim 10 as not being clear whether the
chamber is just receiving the printer or receiving both the printer and the
passenger seat. Applicant believes that claim 10, .as amended, addresses the
Examiner's concern.

Allowable Subject Matter

Applicant appreciates that the Examiner has indicated allowable subject
matter in claims 17-19, however, Applicant believes that the remaining claims are
also allowable for the reasons set forth below.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102(a) - Takumi

The Office Action rejected claims 10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as-
being anticipated by Japanese Patent No. JP 2001-328310 to Takumi (hereinafter
referred to as "Takumi"). The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.

The invention recited in claims 10 and 12-15 of Applicant's patent
application was conceived before the earliest priority date of Takumi (i.e., the
"reference date"), and is coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference
date to the filing date of Applicant's patent application. In support thereof,
Applicant submits the attached Rule 131 affidavit and exhibits cited therein.
Accordingly, Takumi is not available as a reference and claims 10 and 12-15
should be allowable.

9 10013703-1

EQ 04 2 4 1 8 1 4 1

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Rigo

The Office Action rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2002/0049535 to Rigo, et al.
(hereinafter referred to as "Rigo"). The Applicant respectfully traverses this
rejection.

Claim 1 positively recites "said telematics system serving as a host device
for commanding the printer." Rigo fails to disclose at least these recitations.

The Office Action cites to the second half of paragraph 0041 in Rigo as
disclosing this recitation. However, Rigo states that a "printer 52 can print out
information, such as a directions [sic] to one of the hospitality facilities, if the
driver commands the computer to print " (emphasis added). There is no teaching or
suggestion that a telematics system serves as a host device for commanding the
printer. Therefore, claim 1 is believed to be allowable over Rigo and Applicant
respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1.

Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which is believed to be allowable.
Therefore, claim 2 is also believed to be allowable for at least the same reasons as
claim 1 and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 2 is respectfully requested.

10

10013703-1

EQ0424i814l

Claim Rejections - 35 LLS.C. 103(a) - Takumi and Rigo

The Office Action rejected claims 3-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takumi in view of Rigo. The Applicant respectfully
traverses this rejection.

The invention recited in claims 3-9 and 1 1 of Applicant's patent application
was conceived before the earliest priority date of Takumi (i.e., the "reference
date"), and is coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to the
filing date of Applicant's patent application. In support thereof, Applicant submits
the attached Rule 131 affidavit and exhibits cited therein. Accordingly, Takumi is
not available as a reference and the Section 103 rejection is moot. Accordingly,
claims 3-9 and 1 1 should be allowable.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103(a) - Takumi and Austin

The Office Action rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takumi in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,089 to Austin, et al.
(hereinafter referred to as "Austin"). The Applicant respectfully traverses this
rejection.

The invention recited in claim 16 of Applicant's patent application was
conceived before the earliest priority date of Takumi (i.e., the "reference date"),
and is coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to the filing date
of Applicant's patent application. In support thereof, Applicant submits the
attached Rule 131 affidavit and exhibits cited therein. Accordingly, Takumi is not

1 1 10013703-1

EQ042418 1-41

available as a reference and the Section 103 rejection is moot. Accordingly, claim
16 should be allowable.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103(a) - Takumj and Pascal

The Office Action rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takumi in view of French Patent No. FR 2779695 to Bertrand
Belanger Pascal (hereinafter referred to as "Pascal"). The Applicant respectfully
traverses this rejection.

The invention recited in claim 20 of Applicant's patent application was
conceived before the earliest priority date of Takumi (i.e., the "reference date"),
and is coupled with due diligence from prior to the reference date to the filing date
of Applicant's patent application. In support thereof, Applicant submits the
attached Rule 131 affidavit and exhibits cited therein. Accordingly, Takumi is not
available as a reference and the Section 103 rejection is moot. Accordingly, claim
20 should be allowable.

Conclusion

By submitting the attached Rule 131 affidavit, Applicant does not make any
admission regarding the disclosure of the cited references. Applicant hereby
expressly reserves the right to traverse the Examiner's rejection on substantive
grounds if necessary at a later date.

12

10013703-1

EQ 0 4 2 4 1 8 1 4 1

The Applicant respectfully requests that a timely Notice of Allowance be
issued in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: \1-Tl'l*0% By: ^A^jLll^W,

Mark D. Trenner
Reg. No. 43,961
(720)221-3708

Attachments: Replacement Drawing Sheet

Annotated Drawing Sheet Showing Changes
Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. §1.131

13

10013703-1

EQ042418141

Amendments to the Drawings

The attached sheet of drawings includes changes to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5. This
sheet, which includes FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6, replaces the original sheet
including FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6. In FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, the top reference "78"
has been changed to reference "68".

Attachments: Replacement Drawing Sheet

Annotated Drawing Sheet Showing Changes

7

10013703-1

EQ ■0*24181*1

Replacement Drawing Sheet

19

10013703-1

£0042418141

Annotated Drawing Sheet Showing Changes

10013703-1

EQ 04 2 41 a I 4 I

2/2

62 FIG. 4 V FIG. 5 62

PRINTER

POWER
SOURCE